Boris Johnson has been rapped for breaching revolving-door rules in one of the final acts of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
Acoba – which has closed today, with its functions transferring to the prime minister’s ethics adviser and the Civil Service Commission – asked the former PM to correct the record following reports last month that he had lobbied foreign governments on behalf of two companies and taken up work without receiving the watchdog's advice first. But Johnson failed to fully answer Acoba’s questions.
The Guardian reported in early September that leaked documents, dubbed “The Boris Files”, suggested Johnson had used senior contacts in the Saudi government that he had met as PM to pitch the services of a consultancy firm, and that he had secretly lobbied the UAE for a billion-dollar private venture, amid plans to use an influential contact he had repeatedly hosted in No.10.
The reports also claimed Johnson began working for the former company, Better Earth, in February 2024 having signed a contract in January 2024 – whereas Johnson’s office had told Acoba his start date was 1 May 2024 when the former PM sought the committee’s advice in February 2024.
The reports also suggested Johnson worked for the latter firm, Bia Advisory, in April 2024 – having not sought advice from Acoba. The business appointment rules apply for two years after leaving office – in Johnson’s case, this meant until 6 September 2024.
Following up on the reports on 12 September, Acoba interim chair Isabel Doverty wrote to Johnson seeking “comprehensive explanation” of his relationship with Better Earth in advance of applying to Acoba for advice and his relationship with Bia Advisory before 6 September 2024.
She said this should include details of:
- Meetings, discussions and correspondence with Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Majid bin Abdullah Al-Qasabi, Minister of Commerce of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia where Better Earth was discussed.
- Meetings, discussions and correspondence with any other representatives of foreign governments where Better Earth was discussed.
- Meetings, discussions and correspondence with Khaldoon al-Mubarak and any other representatives of Abu Dhabi’s investment fund, Mubadala where Bia Advisory was discussed.
Doverty also noted that Johnson had previously broken the rules after he had “failed to engage appropriately” with Acoba’s investigation into a meeting Johnson held with the Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro. She reminded him, “as a former prime minister”, of his “obligation to respond openly and honestly” and set a deadline of 20 September for Johnson to respond.
Responding on 15 September, Johnson said the stories Doverty referred to “seem to have been based on material illegally hacked by a hostile state actor” and that this “may explain why they contain so many assertions that are either false or misleading”.
He added: “It is plainly wrong in principle to respond to stories generated in this way since any such response will be taken to legitimate and encourage further illegal activity. The committee may rest assured that ACOBA rules were followed at all times.”
Two days later, Doverty responded, seeking more detailed answers on Johnson’s work for the two firms, and setting a deadline of 24 September.
Responding on 22 September, Johnson said he did not start work for Better Earth until after he had received advice from Acoba, and that he sought Acoba’s advice on the work at Bia Advisory “but the idea was not proceeded with”.
Doverty gave Johnson a final opportunity to answer all of her questions in an email sent on 26 September, giving a deadline of 3 October. Johnson did not respond to this email before the deadline and Doverty wrote a final time to Johnson to say that his failure to answer specific questions and provide a factual denial of the allegations “suggests there has been a breach of the rules”.
She said: “As a former prime minister, you held the highest role in public office as the head of His Majesty's government and were responsible for both the ministerial code and the business appointments rules. Regardless of how these allegations emerged, it is not unreasonable to expect you would take this opportunity to dispel suggestions you failed to comply with obligations intended to protect the integrity of government.”
She then wrote to Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister and chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to report a breach of the rules.
She said Johnson had been “repeatedly” asked to correct the record and failed to do so.
On Johnson’s concerns about how the information was uncovered, Doverty said: “Acoba has a duty to investigate any breaches of the rules and it is in the public interest to do so.”
She added that the government’s business appointments system “relies on the cooperation of applicants and departments” and Johnson’s “lack of cooperation” with Acoba and failure to deny the allegations had led her to report the case as a breach.
This is the third time Johnson has been found to have breached the rules.
In June 2023, the committee found that Johnson “clearly and unambiguously” broke the government’s revolving-doors rules by taking up a column with the Daily Mail before seeking advice.
In April 2024, the committee said the former PM broke the rules by being "evasive" about a meeting with the Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro, and failed to clarify his relationship with a hedge fund that set up the talks.
In another of its final acts, the committee also found that Paul Monks, who left his role as chief scientific adviser at the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in September, breached the rules after his appointment as chair at the Henry Royce Institute was announced on the institute’s website and LinkedIn page on 15 July and 17 July 2025, before Acoba had given advice on the appointment.
Doverty said the failure to seek and await advice was a breach of the government’s rules and the requirements set out in the civil service management code, but added that "given the unpaid nature of the role and its low risk, the committee considers that further government action would be disproportionate".